whether it quenches thirst. Those who prohibit it say that it only increases the drinker’s thirst and therefore does not sustain life. Those who permit it say that it may, on the contrary, provide enough hydration to sustain life. Whichever of these two premises accords with reality, the view based upon it is the more correct. A fuller discussion belongs elsewhere.

The point is that when scholars disagree over whether something is forbidden or permissible, anyone who regards it as an act of devotion contradicts their consensus. Likewise, when the Companions hold two positions on a matter, anyone who introduces a third contradicts their consensus.

For this reason, no Muslim has held that listening to singing is an act of devotion without qualification. Even if someone says that listening to words—subject to the conditions of a suitable place, opportunity, and companions, and consisting of encouragement to obey Allah and warnings against disobedience—is an act of devotion, he never says that everyone who listens to musical entertainment is thereby drawing closer to Allah. Yet someone similarly claims that travelling to the graves of prophets and righteous people is an act of devotion, and that anyone who vows to travel to visit their graves should fulfil that vow. Such a view is not known to have been held by any of the leading scholars of the Muslims.

Although they may state in general terms that travelling to visit the Prophet’s grave, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, is an act of devotion, or say that it is an act of devotion established by consensus, this is true when their intended meaning is understood, as al-Qādī ‘Iyād, Ibn Battāl, and others have explained. They mean the prescribed journey to his mosque and the prescribed worship performed there, which is called visiting his grave. Mālik and others, however, dislike calling it a visit to his grave. Thus, this consensus